The Current Status of Ewert's Dependency Graph of Life

[John_Harshman]

@Meerkat_SK5

As I explained before, common ancestry is considered linked to the concept of gradualism, and gradualism is intrinsically linked to natural selection via random mutations in regards to the development of life.

Neither of those links is true.

@Meerkat_SK5

The Phylogenetic Tree Topples | American Scientist

I’m going to guess that’s another article you haven’t actually read. Am I right?

@Meerkat_SK5

I also made it clear that to say that the Adam and Eve story did not happen at all would be to directly challenge the divinity of Christ.

Another false claim.

@Meerkat_SK5

Since the evidence identifies the designer to be Jesus and the common design model is consistent with the Genesis account, this is another reason why both models are mutually exclusive.

The evidence does no such thing, and your model is not consistent with the Genesis account. Further, that’s not a reason that models are mutually exclusive, even if your other two claims were true.

@Meerkat_SK5

Baumiller, T.K. 1999. Enough remains to work with. Science 283: 1271.

And another paper you haven’t read. I don’t feel like responding to claims you make about things you know nothing about. Do you even know that the source you haven’t read is a book review?

@Meerkat_SK5

However, I was unable to find the study and read it myself. So I had to rely on secondary sources again, unfortunately.

Your secondary sources are creationists who probably didn’t read it either. You are making unsupported assertions, and for that reason they can be easily dismissed. Why, after all this time encountering people who actually know about the subjects you are talking about, do you remain so arrogant?